In recent years, public philanthropy has come under suspicion. Generous contributions by billionaires to universities, museums, hospitals, and climate initiatives have drawn both praise and criticism. A paradox is emerging: society admires philanthropists but suspects them of ulterior motives. Why does this happen, and are such reproaches always justified?
Tax Gap or Public Good?
One of the main arguments of critics is the system of tax deductions, which allows wealthy citizens to donate money to charitable organizations and, at the same time, significantly reduce their obligations to the budget. The question arises: who benefits society or the donor? Suppose a billionaire spends millions on charity and saves millions on taxes. Does it not turn out that he himself determines the priorities of social policy, bypassing the mechanism of public discussion?
To skeptics, this looks like privatization of the common good: money that could have gone to education, health care, and poverty alleviation through the tax system is being redistributed privately without voter choice or government control.
Another rebuke is the politicization of philanthropy. Many large donors support not only cultural or humanitarian projects, but also research centers, educational programs, and public campaigns, shaping an agenda that benefits their businesses. At the same time, such donations, unlike political contributions, often remain unregulated and do not require disclosure of sources.
Such funding can shape long-term policy influences, from tax reforms to environmental regulation. Anonymity in such cases is particularly criticized by a society that does not know who is behind campaigns that change its future.
Philanthropy as a Reputational Shield
Some stories have shown how philanthropy can be used for reputational cover. In high-profile cases, donations to museums and universities came from companies and families whose activities caused public outrage, from involvement in environmental disasters to a role in drug crises. When the real sources of wealth of these donors were uncovered, the institutions were forced to return the donations, risking the loss of audience trust.
Critics see this as another example of philanthropy becoming a way to “rewrite” history, to divert attention away from the problems to which the donor himself has a stake.
Does Criticism Have Weaknesses?
Nevertheless, not all criticisms of philanthropists are flawlessly argued. First, we are talking about voluntary contributions of money that no one is obliged to give. Second, many donations do make a real difference: funding scientific research, helping refugees, and saving cultural sites.
Finally, society is often unprepared to completely replace private philanthropy with public programs. Budgetary constraints, political conflicts, and bureaucracy make it difficult to realize quick and ambitious initiatives. In this sense, private capital can play a catalyzing role, especially in crisis situations.
How to Find a Balance?
The question is not whether we need philanthropy, but how to make it more transparent, accountable, and fair. Perhaps we should reconsider tax incentives, strengthen monitoring of anonymous donations, and create mechanisms of public control.
At the same time, we should not dismiss the entire charitable sector. As practice shows, many initiatives from the fight against malaria to digital inclusion programs have been made possible thanks to the generosity of private donors.
Philanthropy is not perfect, but it is part of the modern world, where public and private interests are inevitably intertwined. The only question is who sets the rules of the game in this tandem and how to make sure they are fair.